The universe works in many unusual and
unintuitive ways, and these can be made sense of if ‘Time’ is said to exist,
and if it is seen as a flexible, or warp-able ‘fourth dimension’.

But if
‘motion’ can be seen as just something that happens, without needing time, then
there may be a simpler explanation;

Intro.

I feel quite strongly about the casual and misleading use of the word 'Dimension'. In using this word casually to describe something that is not a simple physical dimension, we are trying to give that other thing the same credibility as a physical dimension without really saying so directly. For example if we say a harmonious cord adds another dimension to a song we are listening to, then that's fine, but really the harmony is just more musical notes played together, and it is really just another fascinating 'aspect' of music.

But if we say 'time' is another dimension to the universe we are starting to pump in the smoke into a world of smoke and mirrors. Things in the universe seem to exist, and to be able to move, and this motion is an aspect or property or feature of matter. But to link this motion to the word 'time', and to then say 'time' is another 'dimension' is to imply time is real, and that it happens a 'right angles' to the three normal dimensions we genuinely observe, which sends us off on a path of wondering if we can imagine, or calculate this '4th dimension'. we find we can't really imagine 4 dimensions, but instead of seeing this as an indication we may be seeing things in a wrong way, we think the fact we can't imagine it means 'it' exists, and 'is' mysterious, and we find we can mathematically calculate in 4 dimensions... so we think the idea grows in credibility.

But in fact, all we observed is 3d objects, moving in a direction... and causally and misleadingly misused the word dimension.

Aspects are made of these,

Everything in the universe can be described as having different features, properties, or 'aspects'. A car for example might be long, low, wide, fast, red, and so on. Referring to its physical size of something in terms of 'dimensions' makes sense, but referring to aspects like its colour or weight as 'dimensions' might be misleading. thus we should be very careful about constructing the 'idea' of time, and then calling it a 'dimension' if in fact it is just a useful mathematical tool. - if only because 'calling' time the '4th' dimension perhaps incorrectly suggests time exists as a real thing, which in turn opens the door to suggest 5th,6th,7th 'dimensions' and so may exist.

It is important to realise that the word 'Dimension' is normally used to describe the up-down, left-right, forward-back directions in the world, but then the same word 'dimensions' it is often swiftly used to also describe 'mathematical concepts'.

However it is often not made clear that the word 'dimension' is now being used in a very different way, and it seems to me readers are left to assume these 'extra dimensions' really are mysterious 'dimensions', and worse still, it seems that often authors on the subject don't make the distinction in their own minds between the 3 real dimensions they are talking about - and - the mathematical tools they are using to describe complicated 'aspects' of reality.

Albert Einstein questioned the distinctions of the past and
the future but he did not remove the notion of time completely from his work,
far from it, he went on to merge or integrate the idea of time with space to
create the scientifically accepted concept of ‘spacetime’. - This seems to be a contradiction, either time does not exist, or it exists. I think the contradiction can be resolved if it is seen that time does not exist, and instead things 'just' and 'only' exist and move and change 'now' (to use a thus redundant word).

Spacetime is a term used to express the idea that rather
than space just being a ‘flat’ and ‘inert’ or insignificant background
in which the events of the universe unfold, and across which gravity operates,
space itself plays a major role in every event.

This is because ‘gravity’ is not ‘a force that can operate
between two massive objects across space’, but, because gravity ‘is a result of
the warping of space by any massive object’.

Einstein summarised these observations by saying that
‘mass’, or ‘objects’, tell space how to warp, and warped space tells objects
how to move.

This principle is demonstrated clearly wherever we have a
very large object in space, such as the Sun, that is orbited by smaller
objects, such as the Earth. In this case the Suns mass warps the space around
it so powerfully that the warped space makes the Earth follow a curved path
around the Sun, instead of just passing by in a straight line, or gentle curve,
and off into space.

Sir Isaac Newton had already explained to some degree the
way that gravity works, but not what gravity ‘is’, and Newton had logically
assumed gravity to be some kind of a force that acted between any two objects
that had ‘mass’.

If this was true, then something like ‘light’, which has no
(rest) mass, would not be affected by gravity. But Einstein’s explanation added
the idea that because ‘gravity’ was not a force, but ‘warped space’, then anything
passing through an area of warped space, whether it had mass or not should be
affected by the warping.

This suggestion was actually observed and experimentally
proved when, on Einstein’s suggestion Sir Arthur Eddington and a team of
astronomers went to ‘Principe’ an island off the west coast of Africa to take
advantage of a solar eclipse and observe how starlight passing close to the sun
was deflected by the warped space it passed through.

The observers took photographic images of a group of stars
without the Sun between themselves and the stars, and then during the eclipse,
where the sun was between themselves and the stars. From careful examination of
the photographic plates when back in England they were able to prove that when
the star light they were observing was passing close to the sun, it was indeed
deflected.

However, Einstein’s theory suggested not only that anything with
‘mass’ passing through warped space would be deflected, but also that time is
‘slowed down’ in warped space, and that this would compound the effect of
deflection.

Therefore the starlight passing close by the sun on its way to
Earth was actually deflected around twice as much as Newton’s
calculations would have suggested if ‘gravity’ alone was responsible, because
the slowing of time around the sun meant the light was ‘being deflected’ by
gravity for ‘twice as long’ as it might seem to an outside observer. This is an
insight that Newton may have never even dreamt of considering.

So, it was experimentally proven at Principe and thousands
of times since, that the idea of space and time being intimately linked or more
accurately, both being seen as different aspects of the same single entity ‘spacetime’
was correct. And with this observation come many unintuitive, but well tested
details, such as the scientifically verified deduction that ‘moving clocks run
slow’.

Diagram - Starlight is deflected and 'time dilated' - doubling the effective deflection, as it passes through the warped space near our sun. But, this does
not also prove there is a 'past' or a 'future'.

This observed and proven effect is known as ‘Gravitational time
dilation’, and whatever it is called, it is known to exist and has to be
accounted for in technology such as the satellite based global positioning
systems.

Our understanding of this ‘warping of space’ effect, along
with the warping of ‘objects’ and ‘directions’ within it, and the effect of
time slowing or ‘time-dilation’ leads to, and supports the idea, that time is
in some way an ‘extra’ or ‘fourth dimension’.

That is to say not only that time exists in a sense in
addition to the three normal dimensions we are used to seeing around us (height
width and depth) but also that mathematical equations featuring time as a
fourth dimension make sense and work reliably.

However this conclusion, that 'time is dilated in
gravitational fields',is reached because
Einstein deduced that the deflection of the light should be twice that which
Newton calculated, and because experiment showed Einstein was right about the amount of actual deflection. However, the correctness of Einstein's calculations as they agree with this measurement may obscure an error in the definition of what actually causes the deflection. (Specifically that it may not be a thing called 'time' that is slowed by gravity, but just that 'rates of motion or change are slowed' by gravity).

The problem is subtle, the
deduction and observation agree but perhaps this can be explained in a number
of different ways and with significantly different revelations.

Consider

Case 1 – Time is slowed in gravitational fields.

Case 2 – Things happen more slowly in gravitational fields.

Case 3 – Space is compressed in gravitational fields.

If for simplicity we say we are talking about the area near
the sun between the two arrows on the diagram, then case 1 seems to make
sense and matches what is seen because gravity bends the light there, and time
is slowed, so gravity has more time to exert its influence.

But case 2 also makes sense, if we sent some object, or some
light, coasting through a strong gravitational field then it would be deflected
while in that field, but if we deliberately slowed the object down while it was
in the field, say to half speed, then of course the deflection would be double.
In warped space this is not a simple mechanical slowing, but the effect should
be the same, though to the moving object its speed seems unchanged, while the
universe around it will seem speeded up.

Case 3 also makes sense, if we say the area pointed to in
the diagram is around 1.5 million km as viewed from some distance away then for
simplicity assume the space there was compressed by gravity twofold then in
that area the actual distance would ‘be’ 3 million km[1].
that is to say, if I understand it correctly you could feed in a 3 million km
tape measure into that area and it would fit, and if you walked along the
measure it would look perfectly normal to you, though the stars and space
around you might appear to be stretched to double normal size, because this is
the nature of warped space, it always looks fine to a local observer, and it
always seems that the world around them has the distortion and vice versa.

So in cases 2 or3,
it would seem to the passing object, or beam of light that either, they were
covering the 1.5 million km area more slowly while under the influence
of the suns gravity, or that the area turned out to be 3 million km, twice as
long as expected,and so in both cases
they were affected twice as much as might be expected.

The difference between case 1, and cases 2 and 3 is that
case one uses the word ‘time’ and as such it requires or suggeststhe existence of ‘an invisible thing called
time’, and the idea that this Time can be slowed or dilated by gravity. Which
suggests that there is an invisible future, and invisible past, connected as
part of a flowing fourth dimension, that can be distorted by gravity affecting
the way, and the rate at which events flow through the extra dimension it in
one direction only…

While cases 2 and 3 agree with the principles Einstein
suggests, and match the observations, but require only that matter exists,
moves, changes, and interacts – in complete accordance with Einstein’s
calculations for the effects of warped space – but that it just does so
wherever it happens to be and does so ‘now’.

The three explanations involve time, distance and speed and
normally we say that distance = speed * time, but this statement comes from the
idea that ‘things need time to move’. In fact all that can be proven is that
things move, at different speeds, over distances. The words ‘over time’ don’t
show or prove anything though they seem to have weight just because we are
familiar with hearing them. Thus explanation 1 suggests and uses the mysterious
‘Time’, while cases 2 and 3 use easily observable ‘speed’ and ‘distance’ and
are just the same point expressed in different ways, while not needing Time.

We should note also here that by using the word Time
explanation 1 suggests and requires time, and although at first glance it may
seem to be a highly accurate and fundamental proof to do with time in fact it
does nothing to prove the existence of time in any way at all, specifically it
doesn’t prove the existence of or need for a ‘future’ or a ‘past’.

Given that in this book I am proposing the idea that
everything around and within us can be explained and understood entirely
in terms of matter and motion in the present moment, I am effectively saying
that absolutely everything we observe can be described without
the idea of time. So if time is to be eliminated, and replaced with just the
idea of motion in the present moment then these ideas of time existing, being
linked to ‘warped space’, and being in some way part of an extra dimension have
to be addressed and logically re-explained.

Diagram - Starlight is in a sense both straight - and curved - if it passes through warped space near a massive object. To make this more comprehensible we can imagine putting a very long 'straight' ruler along the same path as the starlight. This ruler would be bent because the space it is in is bent - but if we looked along it - the standard check to see if a thing is straight - it would indeed 'be' straight. nothing moving along the ruler would be able to detect otherwise. Also because the space near the mass is contracted or dilated, in sense the increments on the ruler would be closer in the warped space.

Because the ruler is a single solid object we can imagine sending a (very!) long line of ants along it. In doing this we can see how it makes sense to say that the bugs at every point would be able to see their leader, and would at no point feel 'separated in time' because 'time was passing more slowly' for the bugs near the mass. However we can also imagine that near the mass things are more compressed, and could 'move and change more slowly' - in complete accordance with relativity - but -'now' in that area.

All of this need only be happening now, and not because a thing called time exists - and is slowed as it passes from an invisible future through an infinitely thing present into an invisible past.

(Note Excuse the poor drawings, but the third picture is from Richard Feynmans '6 not so easy pieces - if sketchy 'bug's are good enough for him...)

Re-explaining ‘warped spacetime’ is much easier to do than
it might at first seem, and all of the above can be modified to make sense in a
timeless view fairly easily, if all of Einstein’s observations are said to
‘just be happening’, as opposed to ‘happening over time’.

(It can be useful to first get a sense of how warped 'space' alone might be, see >> ∆ Tame Warped Space).

So, it is accepted that mass warps space, as Einstein calculated,
and it is agreed that the path of anything passing through that space will be
‘deflected’ as calculated, and will pass through that warped space slower
than expected, to the degree that Einstein calculated. But by ‘slower’ here we
just mean that objects would simply pass through that warped space as if that
area was ‘more condensed’, ‘thicker’, or ‘more sticky’ in very simple terms[2],
and, critically that this happens because ‘warped space slows motion’,
and not because’ warped space slows time’.

(in an odd way all of Einstein’s theories and other peoples
subsequent observations verify this anyway, because ‘with time’ it can be said
that matter moves and changes more slowly in warped space... so it is confirmed
that ‘matter moves and changes more slowly in warped space’. DEL?)

If we simply say that warped space slows motion,
then we can see how deflected light simply moves ‘more slowly’ through
such ‘warped space’.

We note here, that it is completely accepted that this
‘slowing’ in warped space is not a simple mechanical slowing, but a ‘complete’
and intrinsic slowing – i.e. people, plants, photons and atoms would all be
moving and changing slower in space warped by a gravitational field, than
‘identical twins’ in un-warped space.

But, it is suggested that things are just, or, only,
moving or happening more slowly ‘now,’ i.e. because they are
happening ‘within an area where things move and change more slowly’.

As opposed to the explanation that things move and happen
more slowly in a strong gravitational field because they are happening ‘over’ a
‘thing called time’, and because they are happening ‘within an area where time
has been slowed’ – and so this causes objects and events to be slowed.

This is not the same point expressed differently, because
the timeless view needs no past and no future, just matter and energy to exist
now, as we observe that they do, and to interact more slowly in warped space
(as we apparently observe); While the time-based explanation requires the
existence of an ethereal four dimensional, ‘incompletely defined’, ‘thing’
called time, that invisibly controls and records all motion throughout the
universe in a mysterious and un-observed way – and that is made to pass events
from an unseen and undetectable ‘fourth dimensional future’, through an
infinitely thin present, to an unseen ‘past’, but at a ‘slower rate’ in warped
space.

If we take the Time-based view, then first, we see time as
an ‘extra dimension’, similar to a ‘track’ that spans from the future to the
past, next we see events as things that travel along this ‘track’, (i.e. everything
travelling forwards though time at the speed of light), and we see ‘motion’ as
something that happens ‘in’, or ‘as a result of’ the workings of this ‘fourth
dimension’; Finally we see this track as something that is ‘stretched’ or
‘squashed’, helped, or hindered, wherever space is warped, giving us the ‘time
dilation’ effects we observe.

If we take the timeless view, then we see matter existing,
moving and changing, and we see motion as just an ‘aspect’ or property
‘of the object’ or ‘of the universe’, or of the two combined.

What this means is that if we use words like ‘change’ instead of ‘time’
then we can see that the ‘rate at which things change’ is just another ‘aspect’
of the world around us, and seeing this effect as an aspect of the
universe, is very different to saying ‘things change over time’, and so saying
time exists, and that it exists as another ‘dimension’ of the universe and so
on.